i love math, i love calendars, and somehow, this always gets me.. 2520 - 607 = 1913. not 1914.. 2520 - 606 = 1914. from what i understand, russell realized this.
he had previously used 606 bc, of course, but then he switched it to 607 bc.
i know there was something about no zero year, so it actually should be less one, correct?.
@Ding, they probably noticed it because 1 inch is 1/12th of a foot, which is about 1/3rd of a "cubit".
From there, you get into all the astrological measurements and yada yada yada.
It makes their doctrine duplicitous in its support of pagan beliefs.
Remember, too, you're talking about some guys who either were involved or had interest in Freemasonry.
i love math, i love calendars, and somehow, this always gets me.. 2520 - 607 = 1913. not 1914.. 2520 - 606 = 1914. from what i understand, russell realized this.
he had previously used 606 bc, of course, but then he switched it to 607 bc.
i know there was something about no zero year, so it actually should be less one, correct?.
607 -2520 plus 1 equals 1914
Why are you adding 1? The zero year is subtracted, not added.
Here, consider this:
o o o | o o
Here I have six total points in space, represented as o and the origin as |
So the point on the far left is -3, and the far right is +2. What is the distance between -3 and +2? It's 5 from one to the other, and 4 in between, including the origin. (This is told by -3 + 5 = 2. Note that I am not adding 1 and the origin is included.)
However, in our case, there is no zero year, so there is no origin... So you subtract 1.
Why are we adding 1 instead?
i know this has been discussed over the years on this forum, but i just had to post this again!.
it seems that the popular fad amongst the "spiritual" ones in the local circuits is to home school their children instead of sending them to school.. now to clarify, we are in a very nice area of semi rural australia .
one with very community minded, and strong family values.
Home-schooling, by zealous JW parents, is about the most absolute-sure-fire way to produce kids, and later adults, who are intellectually, emotionally, & ethically messed up to a degree that would shock the most jaded psychiatrist.
Almost inevitably, if you run into a total wack-job wing-nut JW who has been "raised in the truth", you will find he / she was also home-schooled.
Can be. I will say that home school allowed me to fill the time with whatever interested me, and I dug into a lot of topics that I might not have otherwise.
However, I stayed in the cult for years and didn't leave as a teenager. And only when I took a few college classes did I learn about evolution, which I may well not have done had I not gone to college.
i know this has been discussed over the years on this forum, but i just had to post this again!.
it seems that the popular fad amongst the "spiritual" ones in the local circuits is to home school their children instead of sending them to school.. now to clarify, we are in a very nice area of semi rural australia .
one with very community minded, and strong family values.
I had no chance of learning social skills from my parents and I was put through home school on and off. It was garbage.
Hopefully those kids will get jobs and go to college ASAP... Right?
i love math, i love calendars, and somehow, this always gets me.. 2520 - 607 = 1913. not 1914.. 2520 - 606 = 1914. from what i understand, russell realized this.
he had previously used 606 bc, of course, but then he switched it to 607 bc.
i know there was something about no zero year, so it actually should be less one, correct?.
I don't know if you know this, schnell, but the JWs are the only people who claim that Babylon was destroyed in 607. Of course, the WT claims like with the 1914 thing, that "it depends on your definition of destruction". Historians place the destruction of Babylon at different years, none of them even close to 607 (or 606) BC.
Oh, for sure. I just love how this convoluted philosophy of history completely fails. It does not work.
i love math, i love calendars, and somehow, this always gets me.. 2520 - 607 = 1913. not 1914.. 2520 - 606 = 1914. from what i understand, russell realized this.
he had previously used 606 bc, of course, but then he switched it to 607 bc.
i know there was something about no zero year, so it actually should be less one, correct?.
@btlc, Correction accepted! It still doesn't work. :)
several years ago i started a thread on this forum in which i asserted i had not seen witnesses door-knocking in my village for at least two or so years.
years before that - in pre-trolley times - in going about my business (or pleasure), i'd catch sight of them on the streets as they shuffled in their groups from door-to-door: sometimes there'd be contingents of witnesses, including young couples, parents and their kids and middle-aged and older ones.
in other words, a good cross-section of ages and stages in life.. in fact, i can remember times when witnesses were so visible in numbers when going out in their car groups, you literally couldn't escape them.. then, in more recent years, i've seen very, very little...if not anything (and i count myself sensitive to noting whether jws are out and about).
I certainly get their competition from time to time.
i love math, i love calendars, and somehow, this always gets me.. 2520 - 607 = 1913. not 1914.. 2520 - 606 = 1914. from what i understand, russell realized this.
he had previously used 606 bc, of course, but then he switched it to 607 bc.
i know there was something about no zero year, so it actually should be less one, correct?.
Because 1 CE is included in the 1913 years? Okay, I can accept that.
... Except that it is said to have terminated well into 1914, in October.
i love math, i love calendars, and somehow, this always gets me.. 2520 - 607 = 1913. not 1914.. 2520 - 606 = 1914. from what i understand, russell realized this.
he had previously used 606 bc, of course, but then he switched it to 607 bc.
i know there was something about no zero year, so it actually should be less one, correct?.
Also...
From Year 607 BCE to 1 CE is 607 years
From Year 1 CE to 1914 CE is 1913 years
607-1 = 606
(Ooops! Forgot the zero year!)
607 - 1 -1 = 605
1914 - 1 = 1913
1913 + 605 = 2518
CORRECTION:
607 - 607 = 0
1914 - 1 = 1913
1913 + 607 = 2520
There we go, that's better. Now we still have it leading to... 1913.
i love math, i love calendars, and somehow, this always gets me.. 2520 - 607 = 1913. not 1914.. 2520 - 606 = 1914. from what i understand, russell realized this.
he had previously used 606 bc, of course, but then he switched it to 607 bc.
i know there was something about no zero year, so it actually should be less one, correct?.
@OnTheWayOut, and as I pointed out in the other thread to "the-question" about 607 BC, the 2520 years is entirely astrological, which makes their demonization of astrology quite duplicitous.
